Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 17-00A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 8 Member Craig asked Member Bernth if he would be willing to amend his motion such that the approval was not dependent on this being an affordable housing project. Member Bernth agreed Members Bernth and Meyer withdrew their original motions in order to clarify the affordable housing aspect of the motion. Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant should have an opportunity to respond to the potential changes being made with a new motion. Lucia Liley, representing the applicant, stated that if the Board did not want to `lock themselves' in to affordable housing considerations, they could pick two of the criteria (i.e., affordable housing and the equal to or better than standard), in order to make the modifications viable if the affordable housing component goes away. She suggested against using the physical hardship criteria. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification of Standards, File #17-OOA, based upon the findings of fact and conclusion outlined on page 6 of the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Colton stated that he would not be supporting the motion because even though there is a public good associated with the affordable housing and it does belong in LMN neighborhoods, the granting of the modifications in this particular area is very out of character with the neighborhood. The public good of disturbing the character of the neighborhood does not outweigh the public good of the affordable housing. The motion was approved 3-2. Member Bernth moved to continue Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment, File #3-OOA, to the August 16, 2001 discussion agenda. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 7 drive length standard is in place for fire safety reasons. The fire authorities have found this request acceptable. The standard for dwellings to face public streets is more difficult to meet due to the lot dimensions. The standard regarding distance to a public sidewalk is similar. It is very difficult to do this with the given lot. Member Craig asked if three houses were to be developed on the lot, if the private drive length standard would have to be modified the same as with the current proposal. Planning Director Gloss replied that it would require a modification for houses. He stated that infill projects are challenging. Member Craig asked if the project could change if the modifications were approved, allowing a different type of development. Planning Director Gloss replied that was correct. Member Bernth stated that the City is looking for compact growth and this is a good situation for being creative with an infill. This project will be scrutinized with the neighborhood concern and will be a good project when it is complete due to this process. Chairman Gavaldon stated that there are more streets in the City that will have issues with affordable housing and that it is important that we have the flexibility of the modifications because some project will go in there. The neighbors should add their input and affordable housing should be placed throughout the community in harmonious relations with neighbors. Member Craig stated that the modifications would need to be dealt with regardless of what type of project goes on the site. She encouraged the neighbors to attend the public meetings and hearings and add their input. Planning Director Gloss stated that he was incorrect in stating that these modifications, if approved, would continue if this project would not go forward. This is incorrect. If the modifications are approved because they are providing affordable housing, the motion should be amended to state that they are for a 20-unit affordable housing project. Member Craig stated that she could support the modifications if it were based on the fact that the modifications would further the public good. She would not support the modifications based solely on the affordable housing aspect. Planning Director Gloss stated that the modifications would not go forward with a different project despite the fact that any project on this lot would likely need a modification. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 6 Planning Director Gloss stated that the notification area is 500 feet. Member Colton asked about permitted uses and density requirements/limitations for this zone. Planning Director Gloss replied that the project is 11.5 units per acre and under the Affordable Housing exemptions, this would be approaching the maximum number of 12 units for the LMN zone district. This would fall under a Type I review. Member Colton asked about the intent for the Oak Street alignment and whether or not it would run right south of where the three separate units are. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that it was best for the alignment to run through just south of this property, it is about 15 feet from the south property line of this property to the right-of-way line of the future Oak alignment. Member Craig stated that the staff report states that "there does not appear to be a physical constraint of sufficient magnitude for there to be considered a physical hardship." Planning Director Gloss responded that a physical hardship is akin to a variance. There is some physical constraint on the site that is not brought upon by the applicant. This site does not contain any such physical constraints. The lot is unusually shaped but not to the extent that a project cannot be built on it. Therefore, it seemed to be a stretch to apply the physical hardship criterion to the property. The two standards which apply here are the Affordable Housing criteria and that the plan is equal to or better than the compliant plan given the need for Affordable Housing. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification of Standards, File #17-OOA, based upon the findings of fact and conclusion outlined on page 6 of the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Colton stated that in automatically assuming that any Affordable Housing project is for the public good, we also need to consider the public good of the neighbors. He added that perhaps this project was not appropriate for this lot. He asked if the staff had any input as to why these standards were in the Code. Planning Director Gloss stated that this application has presented a challenge with engineering concerns, drainage, and site layout. It was decided that the modification requests were reasonable given the community need for affordable housing. The private Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 5 Planning Director Gloss replied that was correct. Staff did entertain the notion of this being a public street but found that the Oak Street alignment would be preferable. Member Craig asked if the applicant could legally make the private drive a public street. Planning Director Gloss replied that the City grants access onto a public way and has jurisdiction over where access points are taken. This is based primarily on traffic operations. Member Craig asked what the intent was in terms of neighborhood meetings. Planning Director Gloss stated that the neighborhood meeting was not required as part of the PDP application because it is a Type I review. He added that it would be appropriate to have a meeting given the concerns heard tonight. Member Craig asked what 80% of A.M.I. is. Ken Waido, Advance Planning Department, stated that the Average Median Income for the Fort Collins area is $58,000 per year for a family of four. Eighty percent of that is $46,400. This is the cut-off line for families to qualify for affordable housing. Ms. Liley stated that the applicant has no objection to a neighborhood meeting and that they would commit to doing that prior to the PDP hearing. Planning Director Gloss stated that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled. Member Craig asked for the definition of Neighborhood Compatibility. Mr. Eckman stated the definition of Compatibility as follows: "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access, and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. Compatibility does not mean 'the same as,' rather compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development." Member Craig stated that that information was what the neighbors needed to work with for the neighborhood meeting and that all neighbors will be notified. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 4 Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, represented the applicant in their presentation. She noted that this is a 100% City -certified Affordable Housing project. The project is completely privately funded and is not seeking any public funding, although it does meet all the City standards for Affordable Housing. In order to qualify for Affordable Housing status, a certain percentage of the units must be set aside as affordable for a 20-year period of time. In this case, the applicant has agreed to set aside 100% of the units. The use is a use -by -right in the zone. When the PDP is submitted, all City requirements will have to be met, including the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement. This requests for modification center around the public street issue. Seventeen of the twenty units will face the private drive so the intent that structures face a public street will be met, only with a private drive instead of a public street_ The other three units will face a public walkway that will connect to the public sidewalk on Taft Hill Road. A financially feasible project would not occur if this were to be a compliant plan with no modifications. The Poudre Fire Authority was satisfied with the alternative design, thus satisfying the criteria that developments do not harm the public good. This project is equal to or better than a compliant plan because if a public street were to be put in instead of the private drive, it would be too close to the future alignment of Oak in order to meet standards. The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local government barriers to the construction of additional units. The applicant asks for approval of this modification with the understanding that a neighborhood meeting will occur in order to address the PDP issues. CITIZEN INPUT David Neighbors, 109 S. Taft Hill Road, stated that this project far exceeds any other development that could ever be planned for this neighborhood. He continued to express concern about noise and vandalism with affordable housing projects. He also expressed concern about the density of the project being too high. William Young, neighbor, stated concern about the density of the units and stated that City Council had already denied the construction of a north -south road due primarily to a large irrigation ditch on the property. Member Craig asked whether or not the applicant could have made the private drive a public street but chose not to because the City requested otherwise. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 3 Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Mrs. William Young, who owns property adjacent to the Cherokee Flying Heights development, stated that she had heard about affordable units for the elderly being developed on the property. She expressed concern about making sure the neighborhood remained quiet should the affordable aspect be lost. Planning Director Gloss stated that this is a request for a Modification of Standards for the Cherokee Flying Heights Project Development Plan which is being reviewed as a Type I plan. There are three Modifications of Standards that are being requested. If these modifications were to be approved, the application would still need to go through the Type I review process which would involve an administrative hearing conducted by a hearing officer; public notification would occur within 500 feet of the subject property. The site is located midway between La Porte Avenue and Mulberry on the west side of S. Taft Hill Road. West Oak street terminates just west of the property. A series of single family homes and businesses front the property immediately west of S. Taft Hill Road. City Park 9 golf course is across the street. The application does not include the single family house that fronts the lot on the northeast corner of the site. The application being considered today is for three modifications of standards. The first is for private drive standards — there is a maximum private drive length of 150 feet which is primarily to serve the fire district. The length of this lot is 651 feet. To satisfy the fire access standards, the applicant has provided two turn -around areas, a hammerhead shaped parking area/circulation drive on the west side, and an area for full movement of a fire truck in the center of the lot. Also, there is a fire standard that this lane be a minimum of 20 feet wide, unobstructed. This lane is about 24 feet wide. The fire department has stated that they will support the request for the variation from 150 feet. The second standard to which a modification is requested, is for the fronts of buildings to face, to a feasible extent, a public street. The third standard to which a modification is requested, is that all entrances be located within 200 feet of a public sidewalk. Criteria used to evaluate modifications of standards are that: 1) the modification request, with the changes is equal to, in performance, or better than a compliant plan; 2) there is some physical constraint or hardship that is forcing the applicant to not meet the standard; 3) there will not be any community harm in making the modification request. Staff has found that the three modification requests are appropriate. The City does not have right-of-way to extend Oak Street through but anticipates that it might eventually extend through to S. Taft Hill Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 2 Member Torgerson declared a conflict of interest on Item 4, Cherokee Flying Heights Modification Request. Member Colton moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1, 2, and Other Business item 10. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved to continue Item 3, New Belgium Brewery, Overall Development Plan, to the June 21, 2001 Board meeting. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of Item 4, Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights, #17-OOA. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Colton asked for item 4, Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification of Standards to be pulled for discussion. Project: Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights, #17-OOA Project Description: Request for a modification for the building placement and orientation along with the private drive length. The project is located north of Mulberry Street, south of Laporte Avenue, and west of Taft Hill Road, directly across from Grandview Cemetery. The property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Vice Chair: Mikal Tor erson Phone: 416-7431 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m Roll Cali: Craig, Bernth, Colton, Torgerson, Meyer, Gaveldon, Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Moore, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata, Stanford, Waido, Deines, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1, Minutes of the April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. #54-87AA Miramont Tennis and Fitness Center — Referral of a Minor Amendment 3. #1-95C New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development Plan (Continued to 6121 at Applicant's request) 4. #17-OOA Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights (Pulled for Discussion by Member Colton) Discussion Agenda: 5. #3-0OA Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment (Continued to 8116 at Applicant's Request) 6. #9-01 Modification of Standards — Brophy Property 7. #26-9813 Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage — Project Development Plan 8. #19-99A Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and Modification of Standards 9. #37-94C Park South Commercial Plaza — Project Development Plan Other Business: 10. Resolution PZ01-03 — Easement Vacation (Moved to Consent)